Give Us A Real Plan, Governor

Fixing The State Budget: What's It Going To Take?

February 16, 2003|By GEORGE JEPSEN

Is it asking too much of Gov. John G. Rowland that he offer a specific plan that actually solves Connecticut's fiscal crisis?

He skated the 2002 election minimizing looming budget deficits. Since declaring a post-election emergency, he has yet to fulfill his role as chief executive and propose a comprehensive solution to close the budget gap, now estimated at $2 billion.

Rather than offering an actual plan, his boldest suggestion has been 50 percent new taxes and 50 percent spending cuts. This is not a plan. It is little more than a negotiation framework, leaving unanswered the hard question of which taxes to raise and which services to cut.

Is this leadership?

Unable or unwilling to offer real direction, Gov. Rowland's impulse has been to lash out. His target has been public employees. No question, union concessions must be part of a final settlement. State employee wages and benefits, however, are hardly 20 percent of the state budget. They may be a handy scapegoat, but it's absurd to suggest they are the central problem. Moreover, to hold 2,800 state employees and their families hostage to the budget process is just plain nasty, reflecting that the governor has dragged his personal war with unions into a policy debate.

Legislative Democrats are also subjects of the governor's attacks. But why should they alone be expected to solve a crisis the governor and Republican legislators had a hand in creating? Back when there were surpluses to spend, the governor and GOP legislators demanded involvement in all aspects of the budget. Some even said the governor dominated the process. Today, the GOP is nowhere to be seen. Now that times are tough, why won't Republicans be as specific and detailed about spending cuts and tax increases as they once were about spending increases and tax cuts?

Gov. Rowland won't lead with a comprehensive plan because he's boxed himself in: proposing specific tax increases, especially the income tax (remember his pledge to eliminate it?), would betray the anti-tax rhetoric that is the foundation of his political identity. It's far easier for him to allow Democratic legislators to do the dirty work of enacting tax hikes and then accept them, claiming he had no choice.

He is also self-boxed on spending reductions: By articulating specific cuts, he would destroy the cultivated legacy of building a better Connecticut that he advertised extensively in the '02 election. Anti-spending rhetoric notwithstanding, he understands after eight years in office that draconian cuts will inflict pain on those in need and compromise investment in our state's future.

So he equivocates, flails at unions and Democrats and, to his dismay, plummets in the polls.

A lot of people disliked Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. personally; most opposed his income tax. But even at the height of the movement against the income tax that Weicker proposed, his poll ratings fared better than Gov. Rowland's atrocious 75 percent disapproval rating for his handling of the budget. Why? Weicker was not afraid to lead the state through hard choices.

It is not too late for Gov. Rowland to provide leadership and a plan.

First, he should cut the anti-union, anti-Democrats rhetoric.

Second, he needs to inform Republican legislators that they must participate constructively or step aside. Their no-new-taxes stance is political pandering at its worst, and an obstacle to meaningful dialogue.

Finally, the governor should frame a vision of where Connecticut needs to be not just at the end of this fiscal year, but five and 10 years out. He needs to articulate goals we can all work together to achieve and explain why both spending cuts and tax hikes are necessary to make them possible. If the vision is compelling, the public will accept the price.

After all, today's budget debate isn't simply about a balance sheet. It is about our state's future.

George Jepsen is the Democratic state chairman and former Senate Democratic leader.